A. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendant (three million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The instant crime that the Defendant transferred an access medium is an act that facilitates various criminal acts, such as the so-called “singing” crime using another’s access medium under the name of the third party, and the nature of the crime is very poor when considering the relevant social harm. The fact that the access medium actually transferred by the Defendant was used for the crime of fraud and the victim was committed is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant is recognized and against the crime, the first offender, and the fact that the age of 18 was not exceeded at the time of the crime of this case is favorable to the defendant.

As above, the lower court appears to have determined the punishment in consideration of various favorable and unfavorable circumstances to the Defendant, and there is no special change in the depth of the case.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances after the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to view the sentencing of the court below is too heavy or unreasonable since it is difficult to view the sentencing of the court below as unfair. Therefore, each of the above arguments by the defendant

3. In conclusion, since each appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, it is dismissed in entirety in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.